The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research

• Published in: BMJ Quality & Safety Vol. 23; no. 6; pp. 508 - 518
• Main Authors: Boyce, Maria B, Browne, John P, Greenhalgh, Joanne
• Format: Journal Article Book Review
• Language: English
• Published: London BMJ Group 01.06.2014; BMJ Publishing Group LTD
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Data collection; General aspects; Health administration; Health care; Humans; Medical sciences; Patient Outcome Assessment; Planification. Prevention (methods). Intervention. Evaluation; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Qualitative Research; Quality Improvement - organization & administration; Self Report; Human; Professional experience; Prognosis; Evaluation scale; Health staff; Decision making; Quality; Health care staff; Systematic review; Healthcare; Bibliographic review; Public health; Quality improvement; Performance measures; Audit and feedback; Health services research
• ISSN: 2044-5415; 2044-5423
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524

Objectives To synthesise qualitative studies that investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve the quality of care. Design A qualitative systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL with no time restrictions. Hand searching was also performed. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme toolkit for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis identified common themes across studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. Setting All healthcare settings. Participants Healthcare professionals. Outcomes Professionals’ views of PROMs after receiving PROMs feedback about individual patients or groups of patients. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs emerged within four main themes: collecting and incorporating the data (practical), valuing the data (attitudinal), making sense of the data (methodological) and using the data to make changes to patient care (impact). Conclusions Professionals value PROMs when they are useful for the clinical decision-making process. Practical barriers to the routine use of PROMs are prominent when the correct infrastructure is not in place before commencing data collection and when their use is disruptive to normal work routines. Technology can play a greater role in processing the information in the most efficient manner. Improvements to the interpretability of PROMs should increase their use. Attitudes to the use of PROMs may be improved by engaging professionals in the planning stage of the intervention and by ensuring a high level of transparency around the rationale for data collection.